Rose Bowl Changes... Good.. Bad.. or Indifferent

[GoDucksIn09]

ESPN has reported starting 2011 that the Rose Bowl will have to allow a NON BCS team to go to the Rose Bowl if the Pac 10 Champion or Big Ten Champion plays for NC. Reportedly some tradionalists will be againt the move but the Rose Bowl had to allow it or lose a spot in NC rotation. This opens the door of possibilities toa Utah Boise State TCU or even Hawaii playing in the Rose Bowl. The non BCS team has to be ranked higher than 12th inthe final BCS Poll to qualify.
I am all for tradition but think this follows what the other 3 BCS bowl games have done. I think as much as like tradition would prfer the pac 10 champion playing a top team rather than a second place big ten team. I would like to hear other peoples thoughts.

[OregonMAX]

Bad for us isn't it?

[GoDucksIn09]

Ok if it is bad which am not saying it isn't. Ask yourself a question. If Oregon wins the Pac 10 and Ohio State goes to the NC.. would you rather play a Wisoncin team that has 2 or 3 or more losses.. or would you rather play a team like Utah last year that is undefeated. It is a tough call. I like the tradition as much as anybody.. I also want to see two good teams in the Rose Bowl. Look at what USC has done to the second place teams out of the Big 10. They not even a close game. I would rather watch a competitive game.. even if it might mean the Pac 10.. or Big 10 loses the game.

[gofightingducks]

In some ways I like it because it gives a non-BCS team an opportunity to play in a big bowl game and puts a better team (a undefeated non BCS) up against the PAC-10 rather than a (most likely) 2-3 loss BIG-10 team. On the other hand if USC plays in a NC and the Ducks finish the PAC-10 in second with 1 loss, does that mean they would get left out of the Rose Bowl and a BCS game altogether?

[goducks75]

In some ways I like it because it gives a non-BCS team an opportunity to play in a big bowl game and puts a better team (a undefeated non BCS) up against the PAC-10 rather than a (most likely) 2-3 loss BIG-10 team. On the other hand if USC plays in a NC and the Ducks finish the PAC-10 in second with 1 loss, does that mean they would get left out of the Rose Bowl and a BCS game altogether?

Probably not (unless if Notre Dame decides to be relevant this year because there's a clause that says they HAVE to be included if they are in the top 12). If Oregon would be ranked in the top 10 despite that 1 loss (which we probably would), then it would be a travesty for us NOT to be in a BCS game. That said if we were 11th or 12th then it'd be easier for the BCS to allow a team to skip right over us (or any other Pac-10 team in that situation for that matter).

[wheaton4prez]

It's a smokescreen the BCS hopes will get them off the hook with the public that is demanding a play-off.

[neezy3]

the thing i dont understand is why the rose bowl? just another way of screwing the pac imo, whats wrong with the fiest sugar or orange bowl...
the only thing i can think of is that the teams they mentioned primarily are from the west but the fiesta is in zona which doesnt make sense. i guess it doesnt really effect us either because they dont let two pac 10 teams play in a bcs bowl anyway. another bad thing is it doesnt help us because were going to be expected to win so a loss is huge if it ever does happen.

[Oregonian]

I like it. The Rose Bowl committee has always hinged too much on "tradition" because it has its age, and it clearly showed when they pulled Illinois out of their hat a couple years ago only to watch them get smoked.

Obviously Pac-10 teams are going to complain about having a stake in a Rose Bowl, but if the 2nd place Pac-10 team is deserving of a BCS slot, this is only going to free up a spot in one of the other BCS games that would have normally been taken up by that non-BCS team.

[pudgejeff]

my question is, is it that the Rose Bowl has to let one of them in?...or say one of the spots normally promised to one of the other conference's is vacant because they're in the NC and so is a Pac 10 team does that mean the Rose Bowl has to take the non-bcs team and the #2 from the other league take over the spot for the team that's in the NC or does it go by BCS rank...cause the way I took it is the Rose bowl has to take it and this is pretty much the pac 10/big 10 takin it in the ass again

[woundedknees]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-ros ... 1039.story

The arrangement was hammered out several years ago, though it wasn't widely discussed until Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delany brought it up Monday at the first of his conference's two media days.

Confusion seems to be woven into the BCS fabric, but the deal works something like this:

In the past, if one of the Rose Bowl's traditional opponents, the Pacific 10 Conference and Big Ten champions, was selected for the national championship game, officials could take the conference's second-place team.

Starting with the 2011 game, the Rose Bowl must fill the empty slot with a non-BCS team if that team is ranked No. 12 or higher. (Sounds like a Notre Dame style sweetheart deal, doesn't it?)

So, in 2008, it might have been Hawaii facing the Trojans on New Year's Day.

But once the Rose Bowl takes one non-BCS team, it has fulfilled its obligation and can revert to the old rules until the current contract expires in 2014.

Other bowls have been forced to take non-BCS teams before -- Hawaii played in the 2008 Sugar Bowl against Georgia -- which was a sore point at the last round of television negotiations. They wanted to bring the Rose Bowl in line.

Pasadena agreed to put out a welcome mat for the smaller stars in the NCAA constellation. Kind of.

"The only other option was don't have a national championship game," Dorger said. "And we didn't like that option."

[woundedknees]

Honestly, what concerns me most about this is the possibility that 2 PAC-10 teams could have outstanding seasons(12-0 for one, with, the runner up having only a narrow loss to the eventual league champ to end at 11-1), and if the LC goes to the NC, the runner-up could end up playing in the Holiday Bowl, while BSU, Hawaii, or BYU end up in the Grandaddy of them all, if the PAC 10 continues to get the standard dollop of BCS respect.

That would be the ultimate slap in the face...

Hypothetical question... If the NC Game ends up being between the Big 10/PAC 10 champs, who gets the RoseBowl?

Theoretically speaking, assuming there are 2 highly ranked mid majors who qualify, that sounds like potentially an even bigger nighmare!

[uodux1212]

Honestly, what concerns me most about this is the possibility that 2 PAC-10 teams could have outstanding seasons(12-0 for one, with, the runner up having only a narrow loss to the eventual league champ to end at 11-1), and if the LC goes to the NC, the runner-up could end up playing in the Holiday Bowl, while BSU, Hawaii, or BYU end up in the Grandaddy of them all, if the PAC 10 continues to get the standard dollop of BCS respect.

That would be the ultimate slap in the face...

Hypothetical question... If the NC Game ends up being between the Big 10/PAC 10 champs, who gets the RoseBowl?

Theoretically speaking, assuming there are 2 highly ranked mid majors who qualify, that sounds like potentially an even bigger nighmare!

Just thinking about BSU and Utah in the RB together makes me want to throw up. If we finish 11-1, second place in the P10 and ranked in the top 10 the BCS will find a way to screw us. What would make me think different?!? Sux...

GO DUCKS

[GoDucksIn09]

This is an interesting debate. I think it has more to do with making the Rose Bowl fall in line with the others and not so much a slap against the Big 10 or Pac 10. Yes in some cases it will work out that way. Consider something though just being devil's advocate here... As we saw last year with Utah when they played Alabama.. how do you think teams like Texas Tech felt. They had a favorable argument to be in the BCS but the um Sugar Bowl had to go with Utah.

My only point is this.. the system is not perfect. No matter what BCS bowl game you put them in will be another team that might have an argument to have been there in place of the non BCS conference. As far as Notre Dame.. They have been unfairly in my mind given the right to be in BCS game if only win 9 games. In a lot of the BCS conferences you have to win at least 10 games to win the championship of that conference. They can then put a bunch of patsies on schedule just to make sure get to the 9 wins. I have always felt they need to have the same format for Notre Dame as the non BCS schools... be ranked in the top 12 with an impressive record. They have afterall only won one bowl game the last decade.

[wheaton4prez]

I think that the BCS just unwittingly created one more way in which to create outrage and ensure that they will eventually have to yield to what fans want and make a play-off.